'End the Fed' Author Ron Paul's NY Victory Lap

Very funny and heart-warming in the same breath. Notice the childlike joy visible in the photo. Dr. Paul was a happy man having just led an impromptu march through the financial district ending at the steps of Geithner's old haunt, while his escorts chanted 'End The Fed' over and over as they walked and snapped photos.

On Tuesday afternoon, Congressman Ron Paul was in New York City, the financial district to be exact, hosting a book signing for End The Fed at Borders. While being escorted to his next event somewhere else on Wall Street, Paul asked his coterie if the NY Federal Reserve building was nearby. You can guess where the group detoured next.

Great music accompanies the clip and there are some classic lines from Paul and his supporters. My favorite was someone telling the Fed's building security guards that they better start looking for a new job. Beautiful line. Wish I had been there.

And by the way, while you were sleeping, End The Fed cracked Amazon's Top 10 List of Bestsellers. Check out the rankings for yourself right here.

The video runs just about 2 minutes and if it doesn't leave you smiling, then you are even more hardened and cynical than your author.

Watch

Hats off to the NYC Campaign For Liberty staff. Great job with the march and the clip!

I think I heard Dr. Paul say that, "we will be back!" Anyone else catch that?

Comments

[bbro:]

Ron Paul = crackpot

Oct 03 01:50 PM

[nobby73:]

PWC also audited AIG, do I need to say anything else?


On Oct 03 01:36 PM shrike wrote:

> The Fed is audited annually by Price Waterhouse or Deloitte.
>
> What cretins like Ron Paul want mean by "audit" is for Congress to
> control monetary decisions. The result would be giant pissing matches
> the likes we have never seen before. This is precisely the reason
> the Fed was set up to be independent - from CONGRESS!
>
> Greenspan already got to cozy with Bush and left rates to low in
> 2001-03 trying to stimulate before the 2004 election.
>
> Do you people want nutjobs like Maxine Waters or Michelle Bachmann
> diddling over monetary policy?
>
> Bernanke is the man - Ron Paul is a flake.

Oct 03 02:40 PM

[tripleblack:]

Nothing wrong with pulling an audit of the Fed.

Paul is my favorite RINO (republican in name only). He's a fellow Libertarian, of course.

Maybe that's why he smiles more than most Republicans.

I'll have to read his book, though I suspect I know what he has to say already.

Oct 03 05:26 PM

[Albertarocks:]

And one final comment to my own litany about ending offshore central banking, including the IMF:

If there was no such thing as the cabal who owns the FED, the IMF, the Bank of England... there would be no more wars. That alone would be a dandy little side benefit that we could all grow to enjoy.

Literally every single war since the American Civil War (and maybe that one too) was stirred up by and funded by these same greedy banking bastards. They literally funded Hitler and his campaign as well as both
world wars. Who would be surprised with the suggestion that the missing trillions are all lined up to fund the next war... a war for absolutely no legitimate reason against Iran? And the invoice for those trillions has already been printed along with the worthless dollars. Guess who's getting the bill! The unborn children and grandchildren of today's American people, that's who!

Let's all hope Ron Paul's audit is a true audit, and that it ends up in something productive... or should I say destructive. End the FED... put its owners behind bars for crimes against humaity... and the world will likely never see another war.

There... I am done.

Oct 03 08:05 PM

[H. T. Love:]

On Oct 03 08:05 PM Albertarocks wrote:

><snip>
> If there was no such thing as the cabal who owns the FED, the IMF,
> the Bank of England... there would be no more wars. That alone would
> be a dandy little side benefit that we could all grow to enjoy.<br/>
>
> Literally every single war since the American Civil War (and maybe
> that one too) was stirred up by and funded by these same greedy banking
> bastards.<snip>

In one of the articles about CBs that I've perused it is claimed that not only was the civil war funded by a CB, but was a primary cause of it.

It might take me a while to find it, but if you're interested, I could search. Of course, being inherently lazy, I'd rather just post the bunch of them I've bookmarked and let you search.

Let me know.

HardToLove
HardToLove

Oct 03 08:36 PM

[H. T. Love:]

As with all of us, you are obviously working with incomplete information. Unlike many of us, you are apparently exacerbating your ignorance by ignoring what you *do* know.

More below.

On Oct 03 01:36 PM shrike wrote:

> The Fed is audited annually by Price Waterhouse or Deloitte.

And that has produced exactly what benefits to the nation?

Zero.

To have the world's most powerful and influential banking institution audited by a profit-motivated and powerless accounting firm should produce what expected results?

Zero.

>
> What cretins like Ron Paul want mean by "audit" is for Congress to
> control monetary decisions.

As far as I know, his end plan is to do what the constitution directed - have the nations money issued and controlled by the treasury in proportion to population and commerce expansion. He has published a book about it.

The founders explicitly stated a strongly held aversion to "debt money" and the "banksters".

They gave the congress no authorization to issue or control money. Congress can only authorize spending. It's supposed to be up to treasury to fund it.

In that regard, not much difference. Borrowing may be needed. *BUT*, there is also an option for treasury to issue money at *zero* interest, backed by the full faith and credit of the government. Therein is a big difference. It *may* cause temporary inflation (or it *may* not) but at least it will not be inflation on top of interest as is currently done.

Today, they authorize, treasury sells debt obligations which bear interest and the Fed and other parties buy them. Thus we incur not only the cost of the programs, but also the cost of the "debt money" interest and the Fed-induced inflation.

This can only be avoided by eliminating "debt money" as the funding methodology. This ultimately implies a balanced budget mandate. This, in conjunction with treasury issuing the nation's money, means there is no purpose for the Fed as it is currently formed.

You love the Fed? Then you'll love this. The Fed was started *mostly* with money borrowed from the U.S. government, lent to the private bankers in a fractional scheme of 10:1 which the members used to buy their ownership stake in the Fed. We lent them the money to ruin our economy and enrich themselves, all in the name of "the best interests of the people".

There's a lot more nefarious action surrounding the creation and operation of the Fed. You should try to learn something about it.


> The result would be giant pissing matches
> the likes we have never seen before. This is precisely the reason
> the Fed was set up to be independent - from CONGRESS!

Not so. If you want to complete some of the missing information, start googling. You'll find *many* authoritative things, and some real junk too, out there. In summary, the Fed was established expressly to allow private enterprise to enrich themselves on the backs of the populace. The FUD you're spouting is the result of the poor education we receive in this country.

>
> Greenspan already got to cozy with Bush and left rates to low in
> 2001-03 trying to stimulate before the 2004 election.
>
> Do you people want nutjobs like Maxine Waters or Michelle Bachmann
> diddling over monetary policy?

Let's just examine the results of the Fed's primary missions over the years.

"Promote currency stability"? They get an "F" if you look at the record.

"Control inflation"? They get an "F" if you look at their record (hint: 1913 dollar now worth $0.05).

"Promote full employment"? "F" again. I could go on, but if you research, you can confirm this for yourself.

>
> Bernanke is the man - Ron Paul is a flake.

Since Bernanke has never, as far as I know, advocated a return to constitutional basis for the nation's money while Paul has done so consistently, I can only assume from the adjectives you assign to each individual that you revel in your enormous ignorance and have little or no faith in the wisdom expressed in our constitution.

Or maybe you're one of those who believe the constitution to be a "living document" subject to the influences of the fad of the day and no longer relevant in today's environment.

Anyway, until you increase your knowledge about these subjects, you may save face by not *proving* yourself a fool.

HardToLove

Oct 03 09:27 PM

[H. T. Love:]

By the way, nice troll.

On Oct 03 01:36 PM shrike wrote:

> The Fed is audited annually by Price Waterhouse or Deloitte.
><snip FUD>

HardToLove

Oct 03 09:31 PM

[Albertarocks:]

Thanks HTL, but don't go to the trouble. It's not necessary that I have to see evidence... I trust you. I'm not surprised! As I recall, the first time the US gov't ever issued bonds, it was "war bonds" to fund the north's portion of the battle. When I say "recall", I wasn't there at the civil war... I meant as I recall reading somewhere :-)

The FED (as we know it today) wasn't in existence at the time of the civil war, although the banking mafia certainly was, and they were heavily involved poking their nose in America's business even at that time. But I'm certainly glad to hear that you too are aware of the dark history of the banking cabal. That's a lot more rewarding for me than getting flamed as some sort of quack. If the entire world knew what we know about how they funded every war in the past 250 years, I think the world would come to the conclusion that it's time to do some housekeeping.

Thanks for the offer though!

Oct 03 09:36 PM

[H. T. Love:]

On Oct 03 09:36 PM Albertarocks wrote:

><snip>
> As I recall, the first time the US gov't ever issued bonds, it was "war
> bonds" to fund the north's portion of the battle. When I say "recall",
> I wasn't there at the civil war... I meant as I recall reading somewhere
> :-)

LOL! Maybe, like me, you're reaching the age that maybe we *were* there and just forgot! >8-O

I'm not sure about the bonds, but I do know that Lincoln issued "greenbacks", which was accepted as the nation's currency and for a *very* long time after the war, we had excellent economic results - stability, low inflation, a strongly expanding economy.

>
> The FED (as we know it today) wasn't in existence at the time of
> the civil war, although the banking mafia certainly was, and they
> were heavily involved poking their nose in America's business even
> at that time.

If I recall what I read correctly, it was the Bank of England that was involved. I do recall the assertion and plausible reasoning supporting that, but I don't recall any citations or authoritative links to supporting documents. So that is one of those that "fits the pattern" and I can believe until proven wrong.

> But I'm certainly glad to hear that you too are aware
> of the dark history of the banking cabal. That's a lot more rewarding
> for me than getting flamed as some sort of quack.

"Flaming" keeps us from being ignored though, a hazard of advanced years in today's society.

> If the entire
> world knew what we know about how they funded every war in the past
> 250 years, I think the world would come to the conclusion that it's
> time to do some housekeeping.

It's difficult to know the truth these days with the government-sponsored education we receive. A good example is what is taught about Abraham Lincoln. But there's sites, like The Burning Platform, that might provide some help. Unfortunately, filtering through the "noise" on such sites makes them more suitable to those who thrive on emotional rhetoric than those who want to *efficiently* add to their knowledge.

Too bad.

>
> Thanks for the offer though!

No problem.

HardToLove

Oct 04 08:02 AM

[stev53e:]

As Benjamin Franklin stated in his autobiography, the American Revolution was fought over currency not over something as trifling as a tea tax. This fight continued on past the military settlement and reached a turning point with President Andrew Jackson, a true revolutionary, who laid off ~50% of the Federal employees at that time and paid off the national debt to the international bankers (the first and only time this ever was accomplished). For this he was the first president of the US who experienced an assassination attempt on his life (unsuccessful), and sold out by his own VP.
And the rest was downhill from there.

Oct 04 03:43 PM

[H. T. Love:]

And what really surprised me was that Alexander Hamilton, arguably one of the primary architects of the precepts of the constitution was *for* central banking. I'll never get over the incongruity of such a great thinker being so ... misdirected in his thinking?

HardToLove


On Oct 04 03:43 PM stev53e wrote:

> As Benjamin Franklin stated in his autobiography, the American Revolution
> was fought over currency not over something as trifling as a tea
> tax. This fight continued on past the military settlement and reached
> a turning point with President Andrew Jackson, a true revolutionary,
> who laid off ~50% of the Federal employees at that time and paid
> off the national debt to the international bankers (the first and
> only time this ever was accomplished). For this he was the first
> president of the US who experienced an assassination attempt on his
> life (unsuccessful), and sold out by his own VP.
> And the rest was downhill from there.

Oct 04 04:57 PM

[Dialectical...:]

There are a lot of books (from all over the political spectrum) that expose many oversimplifications and outright mis-information in today's civics and history lessons. The problem is that as each generation exposes for itself what the real story is (or some approximation thereof), each new generation is taught the same fairy tale in school. Some simplification is necessary, especially at early ages, and some mythology is due to the difference between what our society aspires to and what it actually achieves. Yet the fact remains that the general story of America, as told to those students well fed enough to learn, is fiction. We do not have as much power as individuals as we are taught and the government (and its principals) are not always acting in our best interest. I would go so far as to say, when the government DOES act in our best interest, it is because our interests happen to correspond with the needs of the government and not vice versa.

Sad state of affairs, to be sure. But hard to change given the historical advantages accumulated by the ruling class.

On Oct 04 08:02 AM H. T. Love wrote:

It's difficult to know the truth these days with the government-sponsored education we receive. A good example is what is taught about Abraham Lincoln. But there's sites, like The Burning Platform, that might provide some help. Unfortunately, filtering through the "noise" on such sites makes them more suitable to those who thrive on emotional rhetoric than those who want to *efficiently* add to their knowledge.

Oct 04 05:31 PM

[Albertarocks:]

HTL, if you're still reading this page, I'd like to direct you to an incredible link that I came across this morning regarding the FED. In fact, for all readers who are Americans, I urge you to look at it too!

dailybail.com/home/the...

Oct 04 06:14 PM

[H. T. Love:]

I just keep an SA "Stocktalk" tab open in the browser so I can see activity in those I follow. It's a lot easier than what I used to do - keep revisiting my comments, click through to the article, see if anything ...

Anyway, I'm going to watch it now.

Thanks for the link.

HTL


On Oct 04 06:14 PM Albertarocks wrote:

> HTL, if you're still reading this page, I'd like to direct you to
> an incredible link that I came across this morning regarding the
> FED. In fact, for all readers who are Americans, I urge you to look
> at it too!
>
> dailybail.com/home/the...

Oct 04 09:04 PM

[stev53e:]

Alexander Hamilton was a US monetarist before he went to Europe and came back a central banker - thereafter he started the Bank of America - the original precursor to the future Fed. Alexander Hamilton was the original sell-out of the US.


On Oct 04 04:57 PM H. T. Love wrote:

> And what really surprised me was that Alexander Hamilton, arguably
> one of the primary architects of the precepts of the constitution
> was *for* central banking. I'll never get over the incongruity of
> such a great thinker being so ... misdirected in his thinking?<br/>
>
> HardToLove

Oct 04 09:19 PM

[H. T. Love:]

Thanks. I was wondering how he got to that state.

HardToLove


On Oct 04 09:19 PM stev53e wrote:

> Alexander Hamilton was a US monetarist before he went to Europe and
> came back a central banker - thereafter he started the Bank of America
> - the original precursor to the future Fed. Alexander Hamilton was
> the original sell-out of the US.

Oct 04 10:04 PM

[jcypher:]

Wrongo. Libertarians are NOT anarchists. You should look up the definitions before you start throwing accusations like that around. Libertarians do require a minimalist government, that bases its laws upon the harm principle. Libertarians, therefore would certainly not stand for 'tearing stuff apart' and are NOT standing for violent overthrow of anything. Go back under the rock that you crawled out from under and keep your venom to yourself.


On Oct 03 12:09 PM carey_jim wrote:

> "Libertarian" is just a polite word for "anarchist."
> Noam Chomsky calls himself a socialist anarchist and is hated by
> the average man.
> Ron Paul calls himself a Republican libertarian (anarchist) and he
> is loved by Joe Six Pack.
>
> Whatever name you give it, anarchism is about tearing things down
> and replacing them with the "wisdom" of the mob and its "invisible
> hand."
>
> The advocates of the (almost always violent) overthrow of everything,
> are usually the most mild manner people like Ron Paul.
>
> In the video, Ron Paul, accompanied by a mob chanting "End the Fed"
> is almost drowned out by deafening dubbed over rock music. Ron Paul
> steps up to a guard at the Federal Reserve Board, carrying a book
> which advocates destroying the Federal Reserve Bank and says, "Hello,
> let me introduce myself. I'm Congressman Ron Paul. We're leaving.
> We just want to get a picture."
>
> Yeah, Sure.
>
> The guard at the Federal Reserve Bank says, "no, problem, no problem.
> Have a nice one."
>
> Have a nice What?
>
> While he was storming the Kremlin and murdering the Royal family
> and all of its allies, Lenin said that the Government would finally
> wither away under communism.
>
> Yeah sure. Have a nice country.

Oct 04 10:09 PM

[roy piper:]

carey_jim, it is not true that Libertarians are anarchists. It is YOU who say they are. That is all. We make no such claim. I look at Libertarians as being those who believe people can make their own free decisions about how to improve their life, and wish to do so in a free society, free of unreasonable impositions of others. I do not believe in no government, just limited government, in line with the original ideals of most of the Founding Fathers.

The Democrats believe in freedom of person but intervention in how I make a living. Republican believe in freedom for making a living, but too often want to impose their social agenda. Libertarians take the best of both parties (and actually pushing those traits even further into the freedom category) and reject the worst.

Ron Paul actually STANDS for something and it is not anarchy, it is freedom. But I can see why such freedom might be scary to those who think a few hundred people in a swamp on the Potomac have more knowledge about how I and others should run our lives than we do. Freedom scares some because they don't know if they can bear the responsibility of failure if they mess up. They want protection and security and the power to make others pay for their mistakes. I want liberty!!!

Oct 05 04:38 AM

[Skjellifetti:]

Ron Paul does not stand for freedom. He stands for ignorance.

Oct 05 10:11 AM

[carey_jim:]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...


On Oct 05 04:38 AM roy piper wrote:

> carey_jim, it is not true that Libertarians are anarchists. It is
> YOU who say they are. That is all. We make no such claim. I look
> at Libertarians as being those who believe people can make their
> own free decisions about how to improve their life, and wish to do
> so in a free society, free of unreasonable impositions of others.
> I do not believe in no government, just limited government, in line
> with the original ideals of most of the Founding Fathers.
>
> The Democrats believe in freedom of person but intervention in how
> I make a living. Republican believe in freedom for making a living,
> but too often want to impose their social agenda. Libertarians take
> the best of both parties (and actually pushing those traits even
> further into the freedom category) and reject the worst.
>
> Ron Paul actually STANDS for something and it is not anarchy, it
> is freedom. But I can see why such freedom might be scary to those
> who think a few hundred people in a swamp on the Potomac have more
> knowledge about how I and others should run our lives than we do.
> Freedom scares some because they don't know if they can bear the
> responsibility of failure if they mess up. They want protection and
> security and the power to make others pay for their mistakes. I want
> liberty!!!

Oct 05 03:58 PM